Can we take a brief moment to address the Anti-D&D trolls?

Ignoring them doesn't work, because they try time and time again to pass out bait until they catch some weak links, and worse still, even when /tg/ shows a measure of understanding and restraint, they will literally argue with themselves just to bump their threads. Argument fuels them, and the moderators seem to mistake what they're doing as something unmotivated and with no agenda behind it.

It's little different from the system wars that plagued /v/ until the mods went out of their way to ban repeat trolls and to otherwise reduce the amount of system war trolling that threatened to choke that board. When the mention of any game simply meant a set of trolls would go out of their way to derail the thread, the entire board was essentially taken hostage. Thankfully, the anti-D&D trolls are much fewer in number and are generally recognized as trolls, but even so, I feel like it's time to address the elephant in the room, and to encourage people to not simply hope that their hatred will ever run out.

Yes, it's bad to give attention whores attention, but these trolls need to understand that they're not fooling anyone, and that people are getting fed up, if they hadn't noticed already.

Cue damage control from these trolls.
Try your best to not fall for their bait.

File: 1487899527590.jpg (116KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1024x768px

>>54052273
>>54052282

GURPS is best

>>54052310
I like GURPS too, if that means anything.

>While they genuinely dislike D&D, their main focus is to make any discussion of it as tedious, cancerous, and downright unpleasant as possible.

The 5e general does fine. I think you are confusing the natural level of shitposting that permeates all discussion on 4chan as part of some conspiracy.

>>54052273
tl; dr:
>/tg/ is a bunch of hipsters who lay into people for drinking Budweiser

Because D&D is essentially the Budweiser of RPG's*. Despite having no real outstanding characteristic compared to other systems, it's the standard through sheer ubiquity, and anyone who hates it doesn't have the balls to admit that, most of the time, it will do fine for whatever party you're hosting. It's not good, it's not bad, it's just there, and everyone who's coming will have had it at some point in their lives.

*This is a bit of a loaded statement, because I've only had Budweiser twice in my life. The local example would be Heineken, which is popularly derided in this fashion precisely because it's the most common pilsener found in the country.

>>54052310
I've never played GURPS, but I would willing to try it. I love AD&D, even with it's problems, since I play it the most and I was raised on it. I've only played 3.5 twice, and both times were horrible. Never played anything past that. Also like Rifts, even with it's problems. I want to play L5R but everyone calls me a weeb when I try to talk about it,and I can't even talk about Degenesis before all hell breaks out

>This isn't saying D&D is a perfect game or that it is above criticism. This isn't a call to say that no one is allowed to dislike D&D, or that everyone who argues about it is a troll. This is to directly acknowledge the trolls, most of who hide behind anonymity, who are fervent and motivated in making RPG discussion on /tg/ an endless series of system wars, for no purpose beyond their personal amusement and their conviction that no one should discuss the game they hate except to express how much they hate it.

But you've provided no meaningful way of telling the distinction. You are tarring everyone who might make a negative comment about D&D with the same brush, and this line of logic is more harmful to actual system discussion than the 'trolls' you claim to be attacking.

>>54052361
The idea that any mention of D&D must be kept to generals out of fear of being attacked by trolls elsewhere is exactly the kind of hostage situation these trolls would like to put /tg/ in.

Though, they have tried to troll the 5e general on numerous occasions. I assume that if people actually kept all mention of D&D to generals, the trolls would follow until even the generals wouldn't be safe.

This is less of a conspiracy, and more of just a few very, very dedicated trolls. And, it's no real use hoping to deny their existence, because even casual observation reveals them, and their repeated troll threads are flat out confirmation.

>>54052431

It is a conspiracy theory, because you're on an anonymous imageboard. Any assertions of identity you make is basically without evidence or rationality, and could easily be pure confirmation bias.

4chan is a place with a lot of trolling and bullshit. D&D is one of the games most talked about on /tg/. Do you not see the logical consequence of that?

>>54052310
I'm convinced that I'm the only human that actually plays GURPS and the rest of you are just memeing.

>>54052273
So I should keep my opinions to myself because why exactly? Hell, I don't like D&D, never really posted about it one way or the other, but jesus wept if your post isn't massively entitled.

People hate stuff. People hate popular stuff more. People hate bad popular stuff the most. You're the equivilent of the guy defending fucking Coldplay. Sure, they're not the worst band in the world, but if that's all you listen to you're at best lazy and at worst an actual simpleton.

System wars will forever be a facet of this board. We've lost so much of the good stuff over the years - but people can still find their way into better systems from threads like this. So good day and fuck you.

File: IMG-20170609-WA0008.jpg (50KB, 750x1125px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 750x1125px

>>54052310
Yeah, I love GURPS

>>54052273
>>54052282
There are reasons not to play DnD.

When somebody finds one of those reasons and asks how it can be fixed, the answer is often to play something else.

The same applies to most systems, but DnD is the most played.

What about that do you contest?

>>54052387
Nice to see that I'm not the only Rifts player on the board! Any good stories?

>>54052662
Is rifts the one with occupational character classes? Because if so I read that acronym and immediately put it down and moved onto something that sounded less like a tax form.

>>54052398
>But you've provided no meaningful way of telling the distinction.

It's actually pretty simple to spot a troll. If a person is criticizing D&D but treating it fairly, they're not a troll. "Fairly" can be defined by not pronouncing it to be the worst system of all time, or claiming that no one should play it, or many other hyperbolic bait statements trolls employ.

For the most part, I thought most people were pretty good at spotting trolls, considering how they tend to be called out as such in most discussions and for making threads like "When did you realize D&D was garbage?". If you really think the trolls are doing a good job at disguising themselves, I'd say you are really extending them far more of the benefit of the doubt than they've earned through their repetive and simple-minded trolling.

>>54052474
>without evidence or rationality

On an anonymous board, we are forced to come to our own conclusions. Sometimes, however, it's very simple, with the trolls falling into very obvious patterns.

Or, are you hoping to try and claim the "When did you realize D&D was garbage?" are not made and bumped by these trolls?

I think we are well past the point of even pretending that these trolls are not committed, and well past the point where even their best attempts at dismissing these accusations will really do anything. On 4chan, we're expected to allow people some measure of the benefit of the doubt and to suspend our disbelief, but what you are basically asking people to do is to ignore something as obvious as a daily troll thread. That's basically asking people to be stupid.

>>54052623
The problem with the "have you tried not playing D&D" is that people use it more often than not when playing a different system wouldn't solve anything.

Few problems discussed on this board can be solved just by switching systems, largely because at the end of the day, the system is actually only a small component to the game that's being run, and that switching systems just leads to a new veneer on the same old problems.

"Try X system" is not always bad advice, but it's not particularly helpful in a thread about problem players, or about story issues, or even alignment arguments, because even in the last case it's just a name (or a different name) for things you'll find in find in almost every other game. Even games "without" alignments still have degrees of morality to them or factions with codes of conduct, and most alignment arguments typically revolve around these two features of alignment.

Does D&D have flaws? Certainly, but most of these are remedied in far less time than it takes to learn a new system, and the idea that you should abandon a system just because something didn't work out is why we find a lot of people hopping through multiple systems hoping that a change of game will solve their problems.

Most of the whole problem with system discussion is that it's actually political in nature. Play X game or play Y game is a tactic to try to garner support for one game or dissuade people from playing another, and is largely dishonest in its lack of transparency. D&D becomes a target not because it's a bad game by any measure, but because it's popularity means people are less inclined to play other games.

As a person who has played his share of everything under the sun and now plays homebrews almost exclusively, I've really gotten tired of people claiming system superiority or inferiority when they're all just talking about the same inferior games just under different disguises.

If only they knew how amazing Duck in the Circle was.

>>54052729

Rather than it being a dedicated group of trolls, I just assumed it was garden variety shitposting and moved on, rather than obsessing over it.

>>54052747

I swear I've seen almost this exact post before, and it was just as stupid then as it is now.

>>54052706
Yeah that's the one. It's just a different approach to the idea of classes. Basically your class is based on your character's job/occupation, the idea is fairly outdated but you can get some really interesting characters out of it.

>>54052761
I'm glad we're having this thread now, because it's good for you to recognize that this isn't "garden variety" shitposting.
In fact, there really shouldn't be anything like "garden variety" shitposting, because shitposting of any kind isn't something anyone should encourage.

They're trolls, plain and simple, and trolls really only belong on boards like /b/ or /r9k/. While it would be excessive policing to try to get rid of every troll or to stop every and all manner of shitposting, it's often necessary to address it when it gets out of hand.

Daily troll threads is the line that's been crossed. I don't think it's too excessive to now say that these trolls have moved even beyond what you would like to call "garden variety" shitposting.

>>54052785
It's a copypasta.

>>54052906

Except it's nothing new, and nothing different to what we've been seeing for years? The biggest threads like 40k and MtG get the exact same shit, and you deal with it rather than freaking the fuck out over it.

If people want a thread to bitch about a game you like... So fucking what?

>>54052747
I think that its still a useful thing to suggest, as DnD has pretty much every problem it could have while remaining functional and popular. Its a bit on the chunky side, fairly arbitrary, and streamlined in haphazard ways that can make it bothersome to play sometimes.

You're right though, most people are making bad suggestions. Personally, I reserve the right to ask if somebody has tried something different, because there are tons of simple, easy to learn systems out there that do everything DnD does better. I dont expect somebody to learn (fucking) GURPS or Shadowrun (which I consider to be genuinely unplayable), but I do expect people to grow out of their training wheels eventually.

>>54052940
>The biggest threads like 40k and MtG get the exact same shit

Can you direct me to the daily "When did you realize MtG was garbage" thread? I'd also like to see people asking "Have you tried not playing 40k?" in every thread where 40k is mentioned.

>>54052844
Ive played games with a similar strategy that work really well, they just didnt have an autistic series of acronyms.

>>54052933
Ugh, I cant believe I fell for copypasta.

>>54052273
>>54052282
>While they genuinely dislike D&D,
Look guy, the people posting identical anti-D&D threads daily aren't the same people that were levying harsh criticism against D&D a few weeks ago. The former group saw how rustled people got at the latter and started shitposting easy bait.

>>54052785
What makes it stupid? It point-by-point explains why that meme is overused and is more system politics than actual advice.

>>54053045

Because it's factually incorrect at best, a straight up lie at worst. It was a weak argument even before it started to get copy/pasted.

>>54052729
But D&D is the worst system of all time! No one should play it!

Actually, now that I think about and have had the hyperbole out of my system, Dark Heresy is the worst system of all time. At least in D&D there are fewer dice rolls before you eventually arrive in the "nothing happens" square on the flow chart.

>>54052747
>The problem with the "have you tried not playing D&D" is that people use it more often than not when playing a different system wouldn't solve anything.
More often than not, people are generalizing about shit that "all fantasy RPGs do" when pointing out something specific to D&D and anything which imitates it. E.g., caster supremacy. You could houserule a whole bunch of shit, or you can play a game which doesn't divide things into mundane feats and godlike reality warping.

>>54053093

Given that shit like FATAL and RaHoWa exists, it's hard to give anything the 'Worst system of all time' label, unless you're restricting it to professionally published commercial systems which were actually sold and supported. And even then, there's been far shittier products than DH on the market.

>>54052310
Is this the same guy in every thread or does every GURPS player have this fucking meme frog saved?

>>54052273
I find 5E to be both ubiquitous and mediocre so it's easy for me to hate, the "when did you learn DnD was shit" guy is a pain in the ass though

>>54053159

5e is more meh than it is hateable. An incredibly bland game whose design played it safe almost to a fault. Still, I can't exactly call it a bad product since given its sales it's exactly what the core D&D demographic wanted.

Then again, over the past few months I've seen more and more complaints about the lack of depth and complexity it has, and the lack of content, so at least some portion of the fanbase grew weary of it. Maybe it'll encourage them to actually include some interesting design ideas next time.

>>54053059
I'd say it's a very strong argument, largely because yes, it is overused to the point of it being a forced meme, and yes, it is more for system politics than it is advice. 9/10 times, it's used in exactly the way described, where a person spams the image simply whenever the topic of D&D is broached. Hell, not even a "have you tried this system?", simply "Don't play D&D and all your problems will be solved."

>>54053004
>Can you direct me to the daily "When did you realize MtG was garbage" thread?

you're really getting hung up on those threads

your original post made it sound like these phantom trolls are going into good, honest threads and turning them to shit. but your only proof are threads obviously created from the outset to troll D&D, and the 5e threads are chugging along just fine. so why not just ignore the troll threads?

>>54053221
DnD isn't bad, it's just far from universal in what it can handle, people that really want to run a game outside DnD's niche (which varies by edition) should use a different system

>>54053221

>Does D&D have flaws? Certainly, but most of these are remedied in far less time than it takes to learn a new system

This in particular is the fundamental lie that causes it all to fall apart, asserting that other systems are hard to learn (when often this isn't the case) while D&D's problems are easy to fix (when, given that things like caster supremacy are still discussed and argued about, it's quite clearly not the case)

And that's aside from the fundamental falseness of it. Most of the time when I see people suggesting other systems, it is specifically because they avoid a D&Dism which is causing the problem. I have yet to see these endless examples of system recommendations as 'system politics' rather than sincere attempts to help people find something more suitable for the premise they want to run.

D&D isn't a bad game, but it's a narrow game. Fantasy adventuring? Sure. For everything else you're better off using something else.

>>54052273
D&D a shit, and so is your face.

>>54052988

>Shadowrun (which I consider to be genuinely unplayable)

So true... I think the only way to play it is to eliminate half the actions in game and handwave a lot of stuff.

>>54053236
>your original post made it sound like these phantom trolls are going into good, honest threads and turning them to shit

But, they do. Even just a casual look into just about any RPG discussion will reveal these trolls, though they're often ignored. The "Garbage" threads are just being brought up to absolutely debunk the rather pathetic attempts to pretend that these trolls don't exist at all, since even though defining trolls is in the realm of subjectivity, even the worst of these trolls couldn't form an argument to try and dismiss those threads.

They overplayed their hand, and are being called out on it.

>>54052511
I play GURPS but not as often as I'd like. It's my preferred system when I'm gming though.

>>54053330
Report troll threads and posts, sage if posting in a troll thread, don't reply to troll posts, don't get mad at sincere criticism of DnD due to trolls

>>54053326

I've only ever played Shadowrun 4e, but I did find it kinda overwhelming. A few system veterans had to do a lot to help me figure it out, make my character and so on.

It's weird. The setting and premise is really cool, but it doesn't seem like any version of the system is actually considered good, just various different flavours of bad.

>>54053330

Your fundamental misunderstanding is the notion that trolling requires sincerity or commitment.

There is no conspiracy. There are people who post shit because it gets a reaction and they think it's funny.

>>54053384
The best way to play Shadowrun is to keep the fluff but run GURPS instead.

>>54053426

Eh, I've never had any interest in GURPS. I can see why people like it, but the mechanics just seem really dull to me. I get they can do a lot of things, but they have no real identity or interesting ideas of their own, which is a part of the experience I really enjoy in RPGs.

>>54053384

>The setting and premise is really cool, but it doesn't seem like any version of the system is actually considered good, just various different flavours of bad.

That sentence also summarizes my exact opinion of Shadowrun.

I love the setting, the premise and theme of play. But the rules... the mechanics... it's just a tragedy.

>>54053426
What is GURPS anyways that it can allegedly do anything? Can one of you GURPS prophets link me the main manual of the current version or something?

>>54052662
>Any good stories?
Not good with stories but we played an awesome campaign of "The Iron Heart defends against Calgary and their demon hordes". We all died in the end, but the rest of the Coalition States came and saved the day. was super fun and the biggest highlight for my character was killing 3 Baal-Rogs in a damaged glitterboy with a vibro-blade as my only weapon.

>>54053271
>(when, given that things like caster supremacy are still discussed and argued about, it's quite clearly not the case)

But, that has multiple easy fixes. Multiple. Making it clearly the case that it's easy to fix, depending on what exactly your issue with caster supremacy is.

Even something like alignment gripes have easy fixes, including something as simple as "don't use alignment."

Yes, some systems are very quick and easy to learn, but most of the common D&D flaws that people complain about do have easy fixes, ranging from official variant rules for people who don't like HP, simple common-sense fixes for things like capped falling damage or other not-every-foot-fits general rules that don't apply to every possible situation, or dice substitutions and blanket-math equations to remedy mechanic complaints.

Calling D&D a narrow game also shows your lack of experience with how broad people have been using it for decades. Fantasy Adventure? That's such a broad phrase, that I don't really think you appreciate just how much falls under that umbrella.

>And that's aside from the fundamental falseness of it. Most of the time when I see people suggesting other systems

The fundamental falseness is that you're pretending they're suggesting other systems most of the time. Most of the time, they're just pleading for people to stop playing D&D, a naked image post or otherwise simply spamming the phrase, without actually providing any system recommendations.

Your fundamental falseness seems to stem from largely just you not liking the system, and trying to defend people who are hoping to just use a spammed meme to turn people away from it. Sorry that I have to be so blunt, but that's what it seems.

>>54053541

>But, that has multiple easy fixes. Multiple. Making it clearly the case that it's easy to fix, depending on what exactly your issue with caster supremacy is.

There really fucking aren't. If there were, there would be a common consensus.

The closest thing is 'Play tier 3/4 with proper content restrictions', but that isn't a fix, that's a band aid which excludes a huge amount of content and puts a lot of extra work on the GM.

>>54053443
Read GURPS lite, which is free and a quick Google away. That should give you the main idea. The dozens of books just provide extensions of the rules for nearly every setting and type of game imaginable.

>>54053413
Trolling doesn't require commitment, true. But these particular trolls are committed, with their daily and bumped "garbage" thread being undeniable proof, with how much they troll otherwise being admittedly subjective, but it being rather foolish to extend to them the benefit of the doubt anymore.

>>54053541

Ahh, so you're a D&D anti-troll, I see.

I like D&D just fine. Every edition has its problems, but it works well as a fantasy adventuring game- Because that's what it is and what it's good for.

But acknowledging the flaws that exist and not treating it like a generic system (which it is not and has never been) apparently makes me a hater who just doesn't want people to play D&D, because that lets you completely avoid actually engaging with my arguments.

>>54053593

You have no evidence to support that.

And if you take Occams Razor into account, 'random shitposters noticing it gets a reaction' seems a lot less complex than a small group of dedicated anti-D&D trolls as you keep trying to push.

>>54053157
We do. All two of us.

>>54053566
>There really fucking aren't. If there were, there would be a common consensus.


There really are though. It's just that "caster supremacy" is a not a narrow subject, and different people have different things they like and dislike about it, which leads to different fixes and solutions. Expecting something like a "common consensus" for something like it is really just not appreciating that people have wildly different opinions and tastes, and is really a mark against you when it comes to RPG discussion. One common solution back in 2e for high level groups was to simply embrace all-caster parties, even though that's not a particularly popular option today. Still, there's nothing wrong with it, and it would do you good to appreciate that more.

And, as a small note, excluding a huge amount of content isn't really an issue for such a big system like D&D.

>>54052273

I both agree that this is annoying and does happen, but disagree that it is some sort of small group of determined detractors.

It's far more likely that people just enjoy shitposting and it is very easy to jump into any thread that's even remotely related and yell "Have you considered not playing DND?"

Take this example for instance

>>54050399

Just a zero effort driveby to bait responses, which it received.

I think the easy solution is for our moderators to enforce Global Rule 3 and ban people who post offtopic, flames, or troll-posts.

The next best solution is to just ignore them. It will stop happening it if it stops working. The people looking to get an easy rise out of others will switch to newer material.

>>54053700

Then list a few simple fixes for caster supremacy. Things that don't take much effort from groups and players, cater to a wide variety of playstyles and fully address the issue in all its myriad forms.

Because you said it's easy, right? So go ahead. Prove it.

Honestly a large part of the problem is that people don't nail down editions when arguing about DnD

>>54053619
You're trying really hard here. But, you're playing a game where you're trying to bluff after the cards have already been put on the table.

We've got trolls. Dedicated trolls. The kind that raced into this thread and stopped bumping the Garbage thread all because they are terrified of something as silly as someone taking a moment to address the obvious. Occam's razor? "A few dedicated guys keep doing the same thing over and over" is a lot less complex than "Random people spontaneously begin to mimic each other, with the same level of almost autistic dedication."

>>54053766

90% of the time it's 3.PF. 5e is too bland to draw many complaints, while the people who bitch about 4e are loathe to actually call it D&D. Meanwhile, despite their modern presence, the OSR crowd are a tiny minority of D&D players. 3.x was when the population really exploded.

>>54053793

...You realise that last phrase describes 99% of 4chan meme culture, right?

>>54053731
May I ask something?
What's your favorite system? It would help me tailor the list to the options you would agree with.

>>54053800
I honestly have a bigger problem with 5e than with 3.5

File: YyicrOW.jpg (44KB, 500x474px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x474px

>>54053705
>I think the easy solution is for our moderators to enforce Global Rule 3 and ban people who post offtopic, flames, or troll-posts.
While you're correct, this isn't going to happen unless they're all ousted and replaced with people willing to lift a finger to enforce the rules.

>>54053818
Give me rules for a low magic horror campaign

>>54053818

I'm not asking for a solution for me. You said it was an easy fix. You should know the main problems and have default solutions for each of them, as well as advice on how to mix and match them. If, y'know, it really is easy, and you weren't just pulling that out of your arse.

But for the sake of argument, let's say my favourite system is D&D.

>>54053806
Do you spend 99% of your time in /tv/?

>>54052273
It bothers me what a lazy composition OP's image is.

>elephant was clearly outside when the photo was taken
>shadows drawn by a retard in photoshop
>blur tool used like it's going out of style

>>54053818
Also which edition are you defending?

File: 1498580667062.png (272KB, 646x680px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 646x680px

>>54052273
>Can we take a brief moment to address the Anti-Quest trolls?
>There's really no point in beating around the bush, or falling for their attempts to pretend they're anything but dedicated trolls. While they genuinely dislike quests, their main focus is to make any discussion of it as tedious, cancerous, and downright unpleasant as possible. With quests being one of the most popular /tg/ topics, that tends to make all quest discussion taken hostage, since even the simple mention of quests or something remotely involved with quests is enough of an excuse for them to launch into their opinionated tirades in hopes of derailing the discussion. And, without an opportunity provided to them, they go out of their way to make threads just to troll about quests.
>This isn't saying quests are perfect or that they are above criticism. This isn't a call to say that no one is allowed to dislike quests, or that everyone who argues about it is a troll. This is to directly acknowledge the trolls, most of who hide behind anonymity, who are fervent and motivated in making quest discussion on /tg/ an endless series of system wars, for no purpose beyond their personal amusement and their conviction that no one should discuss the topic they hate except to express how much they hate it.

>>54052273
Nice pasta, now kys

>>54053731
Not him, but literally every example I've seen includes three things:

1: High level characters
2: Skilled min-maxer player liberally interpreting rules
3: A DM who allows said rampant munchkin behaviour

I'm not saying the supremacy isn't there, but /tg/ has a habit of blowing it out of proportion and getting extremely asspained when anyone goes against it. Personally I've never actually seen an example of caster supremacy in the way /tg/ posits it in real life play. So even if the argument works for your group, well, it doesn't work for mine. And in the end I'm less interested in butthurt theorycraft and more in playing a fun game.

>>54053910
I'm not sure what you're aiming for, but I certainly miss having quest threads on /tg/ and hope that the mods allow them to return to /tg/ very soon.

This board is not as much fun since they were banished.

>>54053854
Now, I'm getting a strong sense that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, and are being hostile to the point where anything I would suggest would just be attacked without you really considering the point.

The different fixes are for different tastes, and don't work for all tastes. Some people like banning certain spells, others prefer changes to how rests work, others prefer things like E6 to alleviate what they consider the main issues of caster supremacy to be. But, you just seem hostile, and I'm afraid I'm not going to get through to you, regardless of what I say.

But really, tell me what's your favorite system.

>>54053910
People bitching about quests are honestly irrationally upset

>>54052273
you must be new here

>>54053910
Wait, is that the original pasta?

>>54053793
>The kind that raced into this thread and stopped bumping the Garbage thread all because they are terrified of something as silly as someone taking a moment to address the obvious.

have you read that thread? a lot of the posts there are pretty banal for a group of dedicated anti-D&D trolls. is not possible that threads on 4chan are fluid and sometimes people start legitimate discussions in troll threads?

>>54053944
Wouldn't it be better of he described the type of game he wants to run rather than his favorite system?

>>54053941

That either means your GM is working hard to oppose it, or whoever plays a caster is intentionally not being a dick about it.

The problem is that it is easy, through ignorance rather than malice, for a caster to make other group members irrelevant, or to generally have a far greater impact than any other party member could possibly have due to the systems absolute focus on spells over all else.

>>54053944

I'm asking you to back up your point. You said fixing caster supremacy was easy, so fix it.

Let's say I want to run a high action fantasy game where every PC is equally capable of participating and contributing to the game. That can't be hard to fix, right? D&D is practically built for that.

>>54052273
>>54053910
>Can we take a brief moment to address the Anti-smut trolls?
>There's really no point in beating around the bush, or falling for their attempts to pretend they're anything but dedicated trolls. While they genuinely dislike lewdness, their main focus is to make any discussion of it as tedious, cancerous, and downright unpleasant as possible. With smut being one of the most popular /tg/ topics, that tends to make all smut discussion taken hostage, since even the simple mention of lewdness or something remotely involved with smut is enough of an excuse for them to launch into their opinionated tirades in hopes of derailing the discussion. And, without an opportunity provided to them, they go out of their way to make threads just to troll about smut.
>This isn't saying smut threads are perfect or that they are above criticism. This isn't a call to say that no one is allowed to dislike lewdness, or that everyone who argues about it is a troll. This is to directly acknowledge the trolls, most of who hide behind anonymity, who are fervent and motivated in making smut discussion on /tg/ an endless series of system wars, for no purpose beyond their personal amusement and their conviction that no one should discuss the topic they hate except to express how much they hate it.

this has some pasta potential

>>54052273
It feels like you're that anti-D&D shitposter who made another thread for maximum (You) yield

>>54052310
GURPS is good but it requires a lot more investment from the DM in order to make it work so it'll never be as popular as games that don't. It's a toolkit, not a finished game the comes ready to run. If that's your thing then great but if it's not then you should probably go do something else.

>>54053910
>>54054122
>Can we take a brief moment to address the Anti-Copypasta trolls?

>There's really no point in beating around the bush, or falling for their attempts to pretend they're anything but dedicated trolls. While they genuinely dislike copypasta, their main focus is to make any discussion of it as tedious, cancerous, and downright unpleasant as possible. With copypastas being one of the most popular /tg/ topics, that tends to make all copypasta discussion taken hostage, since even the simple mention of copying or something remotely involved with pasta is enough of an excuse for them to launch into their opinionated tirades in hopes of derailing the discussion. And, without an opportunity provided to them, they go out of their way to make threads just to troll about copypasta.

>This isn't saying copypasta is perfect or that it is above criticism. This isn't a call to say that no one is allowed to dislike copypasta, or that everyone who argues about it is a troll. This is to directly acknowledge the trolls, most of who hide behind anonymity, who are fervent and motivated in making copypasta discussion on /tg/ an endless series of meme wars, for no purpose beyond their personal amusement and their conviction that no one should discuss the topic they hate except to express how much they hate it.

>>54053009
>Ugh
BBEG.

>>54052273
Wayne here, my post will probably get deleted, but that's fine.

The main issue is that our degree of moderation is stuck in this limbo where mods will delete some bait, but not all of it, usually because mods aren't /tg/, and thus don't spend enough time on here to recognize the local bullshit.

We either need more active mods on here, ones that will actually interact with the board to some degree besides deletion and bans, or we need less so that our thin-skinned posters can get some /b/ experience and learn to ignore bullshit. Sure, the board will be absolute Shit for a while, but it will give the board community to learn that mods are useless, and any changes to the board need to be done by us, not them.

>>54054109
I'm asking you what's your favorite system though. Let me see who I'm arguing with, so that I can provide you with an answer you might actually accept.

If you just want to argue seneslessly, you can go back to the garbage thread.

>>54054265

My favourite system is D&D as it was promised, a game of high fantasy adventure with a group of heroes working together, all valuable parts of the team.

Now fix caster supremacy.

>>54054265
If you can't answer their question, fine, but at least own up to that instead of beating around the bush. .

>>54054265
For the sake of argument CoC

>>54054281
>>54054284

If you just want to tell me that you're not coming into this discussion in good faith, you could have just said so.

I'm fine with you saying I'm dodging this question, because I will rush to admit I don't want to discuss the topic with someone so hostile.

One last chance though. What's your favorite system?

>>54054320

D&D. Now fix caster supremacy.

>>54054320
Why do you need to know his favorite system?

>>54052511
I'm prepping for my Saturday game right now actually. Taking a break really, but I've been at it for an hour or two.

It just finally resonated with my group and things are starting to go smoothly and beautifully. It's a real watershed moment. As for the rest of the thread, a couple of my players run D&as and I play in those. It's good to relax, but I'm not a fan of the system beyond being a casual player and wouldn't want to DM it.

>>54054320
Warhammer fantasy 2nd edition

>>54054236
Wayne, I don't know how long you were on /tg/ before you picked up the title, but as someone who's been here since 2007, I can say with full confidence:

/tg/ was better when we didn't have any mods.

Yes, there was dragon porn. Yes, there was furry shit.

But these things acted as filters to keep the lightweights out. If you couldn't handle raw /tg/, you left, and the people that could handle it and stayed spun gold out of shitposting.

These days, people hammer the report button whenever they see something they aren't personally interested in, which draws in mods, who end up deleting actual board-related content in the process. This heavy moderation turns the creative types off and pushes them off of /tg/, which leads to the snowball of more trolls/fewer creatives.

If we want /tg/ to improve, we need to stop reporting threads so the mods stop looking at our board.

>>54054079
No, it's because those three rules never applied to us. We never played truly high level, we had no min-maxer playing a magic user, nor did we have a DM who just swallowed everything the magic player told them. We DID have a few attempts to be exactly as OP as /tg/ claims magic users are, and in all cases it was the magic player liberally interpreting the rules in their favour. And that's something I've definitely see /tg/ do, too. That is, building an amusing theory purely on assumptions.

As I said, I've never seen it happen, and it was for neither of the reasons you state, because most of our DM's have been too green to oppose it, and at least two of the players who played casters would have done OP shit if they could. In fact, I got into a big shouting match with one of them because I pointed out an inconsistency in his liberally interpreted spell that the green DM had accepted as fact.

It's just that it was nothing really OP. He claimed it "sucked all the oxygen out of the air", which we assumed to mean it created a vacuum. So when I pointed out the enemies wouldn't be able to hear our face's impassioned plea for their surrender in its area of effect, we had a problem. Turns out it's an aura effect, and nothing more. No vacuum, and certainly not only sucking away the oxygen molecules. But that's exactly the sort of assumption I see on /tg/, except someone on /tg/ would probably say that this spell extuingishes the Fighter's flaming sword while at it.

>>54054320
Runequest 6th edition

>>54054383

...Except that's completely unrelated to the actual problems of caster supremacy.

It's not about bullshit interpretations of spell text, although that makes it worse.

It's the utility gap. That a spellcaster can get a spell which replicates or obsoletes an entire classes role. Why scout when you can scry, why pick locks when you have Knock, etc.

And sure, it's limited, so if you need to do something a lot you'll run into problems... But that's almost always only the case if the GM is preparing for it.

It creates a fundamental imbalance in how characters can interact with the world. Non-casters get skill rolls with limited results, based on 'realistic' expectations. Casters, every day, get guaranteed results that can exceed realistic expectations. 'You can do lots of mundane things' is often a lot less useful than 'you can do a few extraordinary things'.

>>54054365
That was when there was a different community on the website. Those days won't come back because of how the demographics of 4chan have changed. Too many edgy fucks who won't get scared away.

>>54054342
I thought I already explained that I wanted to know his tastes better, but now I realize I'm just using it as a metric to see how hostile he is.

Super hostile, apparently. But, since this was his last chance-
>>54054337

I guess I'm going to run away, and to let him say whatever he wants in hopes of baiting me to further engage with him. I'm mildly curious as to what tactics he'll try.

>>54054484

So caster supremacy is not, in fact, simple and easy to fix?

Thanks for acknowledging the lie, and that the prior post is total bullshit. It's nice when people are able to admit they're wrong. Trying to save face by acting like my 'hostility' is why you didn't reply, rather than not having any good answers, is just a little bit lame though.

>>54054484
Not that guy but you've been a passive aggressive and pompous asshole, you're probably a troll but if you're not you've done a disservice to fans of DnD

>>54054511
Trolls trolling trolls.

>>54054558
He wasn't a troll?

>>54054574
Please.

>>54054574
Hey.
What's your favorite system?

>>54054601

D&D

>>54054581

Garden variety 4chan hostility is trolling now?

Either way, one person made an assertion and failed to back it up, and got called on it. Trolling or not, it seems pretty clear at this point.

File: 1350413695257.png (431KB, 640x478px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 640x478px

>>54054609
Cool. It's not my favorite, but I can respect your taste.

>>54054581
The guy getting mad and saying DnD was his favorite system seemed sincere

>>54054601
Warhammer fantasy 2nd edition

>>54054456
Hey man, I'm just saying what I've seen. And what I've seen are some truly liberal interpretations.

>It's the utility gap. That a spellcaster can get a spell which replicates or obsoletes an entire classes role. Why scout when you can scry, why pick locks when you have Knock, etc.

Kind of depends on the system. I've been mostly playing PF, and we've all kind of grown to hate the concept of the Rogue on Trap/Lock duty to the point where we haven't actually had one for ages. Admittedly, Detect Magic was actually a great way to detect magical traps on doors.

>But that's almost always only the case if the GM is preparing for it.

Yeah, but is that really all that unlikely? When I was playing said Sorceror, our DM was pretty mercenary, and deliberately blocked some of my shit. Oh, and another thing: I've found that /tg/ tends to assume good rolls. When I used one of /tg/'s OP lower level spells, I found it to be much less effective than advertized. Sure, it did the job, but none of this "ending an encounter in a single turn" thing.

Again, I'm not saying it isn't there, but the way you're talking now is already sounding a lot more reasonable than the stereotypical /tg/ assumption.

>>54054365
>people hammer the report button whenever they see something they aren't personally interested in, which draws in mods
yeah, sure it does

>>54054644
I mean, it was supported earlier, back up here,
>>54053944, but thank god that troll ignored those points, because he's just the argumentative sort who'd find faults with anything, regardless of how well they'd work for groups that just didn't happen to be his that hates everything.

If "garden variety" 4chan hostility means hating everything and being an argumentative contrarian, then yes, I'd say that qualifies as trolling.

>>54054678

/tg/ tends to exaggerate, but it is still a factor. It's also clear in how the system is actually designed.

Just look at the PF core book. The single largest chapter, at a whopping 148 pages, is spells. Just spells upon spells upon spells. More focus is given to magic than any other aspect of the system.

>>54054730
There's an entire book of monsters.

>>54054714

What? Namedropping a few things without any explanation of what they are, how they work or why they help doesn't seem like supporting his point to me.

Besides, those basically all amount to 'nerf casters', which is a shitty solution if you actually enjoy the magic system and just want everyone else to also be relevant.

>>54054748
There's multiple books entirely of monsters.

>>54054748

...And?

Also, funny thing- The most relevant aspect of most monsters is 3.PF is what spells/SLA's they have.

>>54054730
Yeah, I get it. But at the same time, in my experience, it hasn't been much of a problem in regular play. And the one time it was, it had more to do with my DM reasoning that my decent melee character was OP, and building the end encounter with her in mind rather than the full spellcasting rest of the party. That was frustrating.

Though, that's something I've seen mentioned before: DM's seem more quick to consider melee damage dealers OP than spellcasters.

>>54054750
>What? Namedropping a few things without any explanation of what they are, how they work or why they help doesn't seem like supporting his point to me.

Different groups solve the caster supremacy problem in different ways. This is hardly a quick topic, because it accounts for a lot of different tastes. You don't like e6? That's you, but many groups find it a suitable solution.

Do you understand the issue? The major one is that "caster supremacy" to begin with is a matter of subjective taste, and how prevalent or impactful it is depends on the group. The "fix", therefore, likewise changes. Sometimes, it can be as simple as banning a few spells, other times it might be removing a single feat, and in many situations it's not even really a prevalent problem at all.

Really, it's just a way for him to derail the thread a bit. Hell, he even mentioned one of the more popular quick and easy fixes (sticking to tiers), only to immediately complain about it in order to show that no answer would satisfy him.

He's just a simple troll, and there's really no need to discuss him or entertain him anymore.

>>54054748
Most PF monsters have spells.

>>54054281
Simple fix, just play any D&D that's pre-WotC. If that's too archaic for you, there are several retroclones that clarify a lot of vagueness in the rules as well as streamline some of the more tedious aspects.

>>54054877

But that very idea goes against the original point that caster supremacy was quick and easy to fix.

If knowing exactly which solution to select is hard, and implementing some of those solutions is hard, then it comes right back around to the original point and the post supporting it being bullshit.

>>54054767
>he most relevant aspect of most monsters

Most monsters don't have spells or spell-like abilities though. And the most relevant aspects tend to be unique abilities they have.

And if you're going to talk about something, list its page count, and pretend it's given the most focus in the system, it stands to correct you on that point.

>>54054711
It draws in more mods than not reporting anything.

>>54054919

Except even then it's a false comparison.

The book is called the Monster Manual. Of course it's full of monsters.

But the Players Handbook? The main text of the games rules? That the largest part of That is spells, by a significant margin, shows where the systems focus is.

Fuck, the closest pagecount to it is magic items, at 90ish pages, and together they make up the majority of the content in the book.

>>54054916
No, the solutions remains pretty simple. You're trying really hard here, because you're pretending that the question is the same as the solution, and really just hoping to argue in a circle.

Hell, many people play without "caster supremacy" being that dramatic or really being much of an issue, just because of the make up of their group and play style. But, for some groups, they prefer a different taste, and for them, there's a lot of easy and simple solutions to implement, depending on what exactly their particular issue is.

What? There's already been a list of several options to put a blanket fix on caster supremacy, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Welcome to the world of games, where different groups have different tastes, different people consider different aspects to be problems, and there's no such thing as a single solution to any problem.

You trying to troll here? To argue to the point where you just wear people down until they dismiss you as irreconcilable and generally irritating? Well done, you've gotten a few replies out of me.

>>54054949
>Except even then it's a false comparison.

How? It's a core rulebook, and it's an entire book entirely dedicated to monsters. You might as well argue that D&D's main focus is magic items because they make up the biggest part of the DM's Guide, another core rulebook.

Magic is a big thing in D&D, but monsters are by far the most important if you want to argue page count is what determines how big the focus is.

>>54055110

Except none have actually been provided. They've been alluded to, sure, but none have been fully explained, described and given advice on properly implementing them.

Which should be easy, given that the statements which started all this were-

>Does D&D have flaws? Certainly, but most of these are remedied in far less time than it takes to learn a new system

>(when, given that things like caster supremacy are still discussed and argued about, it's quite clearly not the case)
>But, that has multiple easy fixes. Multiple. Making it clearly the case that it's easy to fix, depending on what exactly your issue with caster supremacy is.

It's also interesting to note that basically every solution offered thusfar involves nerfing or banning fullcasters completely.

>>54055156

Because, again, it's a matter of comparing title with contents.

The monster manual is full of monsters because it's a monster manual. A book like the spell compendium is full of spells. That shit is so obvious it isn't worth mentioning.

It's only with things like the PHB and, yes, the DMG where it's clear where the systems focus is- With magic and magic items swallowing up vast parts of the wordcount.

>>54055190
>They've been alluded to, sure, but none have been fully explained,

Because the guy just wanted an argument, not an explanation. That's why he was probed to see how hostile he was, to see whether there was even a point in explaining anything to him.

And, I think I'm done with explaining things to you as well.

>>54052273
I'm anti resurrection. It turns out D&D is bad enough to actually implement it.

So fuck your shit system, its for fucking retards.

>>54055230
>1-3 spells is a whole system

>>54055246
KILL YOURSELF

>>54052273
>people actually get mad if people like and play dnd

I haven't played dnd since 5e's release but i guess this behavior is native to 4chan regardless of board

>>54055216

So, basically, when anyone actually calls you on your bullshit, you back off and blame the opponent for your inability to provide a satisfactory answer. Fucking pathetic.

>>54055268
wouldn't much matter because of resurrection

>>54055268
>being this buttmad

>>54054109
Your request sounds similar to 4th ed. Everyone can contribute equally, therefore casters aren't broken. Next.

>>54055386

Which is fucking hilarious, since the whole point of the original was telling people to play something different wasn't a good answer.

I actually like 4e, but I feel like you can't claim recommending it isn't saying to play something different, given the amount of shouting there was about it being 'not real D&D'.

>>54055209
The spell compendium isn't a core rulebook though.

And, an entire core rulebook was dedicated to monsters. They could have been tucked into a few pages in the DM's Guide, and it could have been PH, DMG, and Spell compendium, but nah, they were all like "Yo, we LOVE monsters. let's make a whole book for them. With tons of pages to show how much focus we want to give them."

>>54055320
Only when a troll does. Try again, and next time, be less obvious. Here's your last reply.

>>54055431

This is perfect. It leads right back to the OP, trying to brand anyone who criticises D&D a troll to protect the system from all criticism while never actually having to engage any points or make any real defences of their assertions.

>>54055320
No, he means that people like yourself don't careabout satisfactory explanations of anything.

You're much like 4e players in that regard. You hold your values to be incontrovertible and absolute even in the face of actual proof and demonstration, disregarding any possible explanationt hat does not follow the narrative that you claim to be correct.

D&D players know their system is flawed and don't really care that you don't like the fact they continue to play it. Anyone accusing them of everything from willful ignorance to brain damage is simply someone who doesn't like the fact that they can have fun when other people are telling them not to. Proof becomes irrelevant in the fact of insanity like that.

It's like talking to conspiracy theorists. Reality and truth mean nothing to them, even if it's proof.

>>54055464
It leads back to the OP predicting the anti-D&D trolls coming here to play damage control. Sorry you're not as clever and sneaky as you thought you were.

>>54055464
There's been plenty of "real" defenses. You're just a troll who wouldn't accept any of them, because you want them to waste hours explaining each part in turn just for you to dismiss them out of hand because they refute the narrative you're trying to construct.

This is why people are tired of your shit.

>>54055464
>being this buttblasted

>>54055489

You might want to look in the mirror. I like D&D. I think it's a solid system for heroic fantasy, but it has its problems.

Caster supremacy is one of these, and there isn't an easy fix for it. Nothing this thread has been able to present has showed any evidence otherwise. I'm aware of a lot of the fixes, and they tend to be involved, complicated or very imperfect. It's a flaw that deserves to be frankly denoted and discussed.

This doesn't mean nobody should play D&D. This means people should stop blindly protecting it or making false blanket statements about it out of misguided loyalty or rose tinted glasses.

Cute little snipe at 4e by the way. You must really be holding a grudge to bring it up out of the blue like that.

>>54055320
>being this pooper pained

Why does /tg/ hate Dungeon World now?

Search the archives for the earliest threads about it, and you'll find almost nothing but praise. What happened?

>>54055590
Nah, I remember a thread in which talked about the measures taken in an epic campaign (beyond the basics "my players are not retards" and "the spells are not interpreted in the most convenient way").
You or one of you buttmad clones called me out for "power fantasies", "doing it wrong" and compltely misunderstanding the scope and tone of what I played.
Other than getting a lot of epic gameplay wrong, ignoring part of its rules, and being an all around douche.

You are bad at this game; is not the game is you. Accept it and move on and stop infesting the board you rat.

>>54055415
Fair enough. I enjoyed 4e as well, the little bit that I actually played of it. I mostly bought and read the various setting and expansions books, which was fun. It was actually the first edition I learned to play, back when I was still in school, but even then, with no actual experience or knowledge with fantasy rpgs, it still didn't seem like "D&D" as I thought it would be. Hell, if it weren't for the fact that I'm the perma DM in my group, and they only want to play 3.5, I'd still probably try to run some oneshots for it.

>>54055489
>You're much like 4e players in that regard
Every 4e player I know generally accepts the games flaws and does what they can to minimize them, even on /tg/.
The difference is those flaws generally won't accidentally your game, and can usually be resolved by saying "these 1-3 feats are for free".
Then again, >>54055490 is exactly right, so this is your last free you, earn the next one.

>>54055662

...At this point I have no idea what you're talking about or why it's relevant to what I said.

Have you completely given up the pretense of talking to me, instead replying to the strawman of an opponent you're imagining and have already defeated in the past?

>>54055668
>it still didn't seem like "D&D" as I thought it would be
That's because media representation of D&D is some odd mashup of 2e and 3e

>>54055702
I am not the other guy. I just want to tell you that you could not be the guy I talked with in the other thread (but if not, you are his clone).
The point is that you are both repellent and you must stop. Is ok bing a jerk or being stupid or being willingly ignorant or be so self deceiving to attribute to a system all the personal flaws as a gamer but you and your kind have it all.
You are fucking disgusting and you are lowering down the level of this board and you must fucking stop.

>>54055590
>and there isn't an easy fix for it.

But there are, you dimwitted troll.
Everything from "stick to tiers" to "use e6" "play 4e" or "play 5e" are easy fixes to the question of "caster supremacy". Don't like them? There's hundreds of others, depending on your exact, personal, specific, autistic gripe.

Anyone with any knowledge of the game could dismiss that question out of hand, and you're still demanding people to spoonfeed you specific answers just for you to move the goal posts again.

>>54052273
Mostly I just think it's kinda sad and pathetic that they're triggered by something as ridiculous as D&D.

>>54055761

By asking people what the simple and easy fix for Caster Supremacy was, and refusing to be dismissed by half-answers and a lack of explanation?

If you really made epic D&D work with fullcasters in a way that was simple and easy to execute, tell me. A quick fix that makes all the cool content of 3.PF accessible without as much headache sounds amazing.

>>54055766

Tiers and e6 aren't easy, they require a lot of GM side work and/or looking up whole additional homebrew rulesets to learn and make use of, and even then they have their own issues.

Meanwhile, 'use 4e' and 'use 5e' are hilarious for the reasons laid out in >>54055415

I'm not saying there are no solutions. But the solutions that exist are not quick, easy or simple, and the fact they are not means discussing it as a problem is still relevant, in order to direct people to the solution that most fits their group and their needs.

>>54055794
>gets several answers
>wah, i need you to explain all your answers, i don't know anything about the system

So, you're just trying to waste everyone's time? Look up those answers yourself if you're really that retarded.

>>54055794
This answers shows you what a retard you are.
There are many D&D:
- If you want to keep it old school, you use BECMI and its different progressions
- If you want a modern solution you go 5ed
- If that is not enough you have 4th. For me is too much, but is personal tastes.
- If you want 3.X, you implement, like I did, Wild/Dead magic, Taint, and you build encounter accordingly. Is the most difficult to implement but it pays off for the worldbuiding. Is difficult and need experience, but if is not for you you use other editions. None force you.
This disregarding the homebrew like Epic 6 or else. In other words, you can open th box and play (BECMI and 5d in different ways) or use the game as a toolbox (AD&D and 3rd) or explore its tactics to an extreme 4th.
You choose your level and play it.
You are unable to use any of these 5 solutions and you are mad.

This means that you are a mentally challenged individual.

>>54055738
Sounds about right. If I remember correctly, my first foray into D&D was reading the Legend of Drizzt series in elementary school, and that was during the height of ~3e

>>54055928
Besides, banning spells is completely reasonable.
See how AD&D implemented Ravenloft.
This is very good for all the retards that say "SPELLS RUINED MY PLOT" because are unable to understand that you can have a normal plot at level 4, but at level 16 the layers of deception and magic manipulation must be different.

>>54055880

The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. If you're saying it's quick and easy to fix caster supremacy, then prove it. I'm aware of the fixes, and they aren't quick and easy, so giving the benefit of the doubt you're aware of something I'm not.

>>54055928

Now this is actually a post of substance.

The whole 'Use other versions of the system' thing is funny for the reasons listed above.

The thing with Wild/Dead magic and taint you mention sounds kinda interesting, I hadn't heard of it before.

But, again, of all the solutions listed, you yourself admit that none of the mechanical solutions available are easier than 'go use another system'

Which was the whole original point of the reply to >>54052747 and onwards

>>54055848
>>54055848
>i'm going to nitpick every answer

And this is why everyone can smell you being a dumb troll from miles away.
Tiers and e6 are super easy, just not for morons like you.

>>54056026
>But, again, of all the solutions listed, you yourself admit that none of the mechanical solutions available are easier than 'go use another system'
Nope, I said use 5ed or BECMI for the "out of the box".

>>54056026
>they aren't quick and easy
How is using tiers or E6 difficult, anon, for a DM that does a modicum of his research?

>>54056035

Tiers requires you to vet content to fit the tier. Monsters, items, feats, even with all the classes on the same level it takes work to build the game around that, since the actual system is built around the full spectrum of tiers rather than the one you're focusing on. It's less effort than dealing with the full scope, sure, but it's still not easy.

e6 is simpler, but it still requires looking up some extra rules and it's an imperfect solution. Fuck, it does practically nothing for the basic utility gap.

>>54056026
>The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. If you're saying it's quick and easy to fix caster supremacy, then prove it.

Which has been done several times already, you autist. And more importantly, doesn't discount that even if specifically Caster Supremacy didn't have an easy fix (it does have several, but let's move on since you're a fuckhead), the statement remains true that most D&D flaws are remedied in far less time than it takes to learn a new system.

>>54056048

see >>54056075

Although it might be a question of standards. For me, 'easy' is 'works out of the box', or homebrew solutions intuitive and obvious enough they're easy to fully explain in a couple of lines. None of the fixes for caster supremacy are anywhere close to that.

>>54056133

So your response to not being able to support a single assertion is to make an even broader assertion that you will likely blindly defend without argument?

Man, D&D fanatics really are strange.

>>54056026
>The thing with Wild/Dead magic and taint you mention sounds kinda interesting, I hadn't heard of it before.

Wild/Dead are core/SRD. Use them sparingly, just enough to convince caster to diversify spells (especially with Impeded [School/element] and to do not forgt at home people that can punch/stab

For the taint, look at the Shadowlands in Orintal Adventure 3.0 and decide if is used for the divine, the arcane, all. Again, it must be a trait of dangerous zones, not a way to frustrate players.

Also, have a look at the Ravenloft core book in AD&D. You can merge that and the insanity rules of the SRD, but it would be too much IMHO.
Also, we should fix the math of concentration, it should be easy for low level spells at low level and make difficult 9 level spell un-castable if disturbed.

>>54056075
>i'm going to just argue like an idiot now

Okay. I'm just going to ignore you now.
Can you honestly just wear a trip? It'd save people a lot of trouble trying to reason with or explain things to you.

>>54056133
Depends on the flaw, the farther away you get from the intended way to play DnD, the more it breaks down and the more fixes you have to apply

>>54056144
Everyone, just ignore this troll.

He feeds on attention, and will say ANYTHING to get a response, to the point where he's not even hiding that he's a troll anymore.

>>54056159
Tiers is a shit fix E6 is fine though, also you wouldn't want 3.5 for a game heavy in politics or something else way outside what it can handle

>>54056159

Nah, I'll continue to make rational, reasoned and coherent points and be amused as people wail and call me a troll.

I don't even dislike D&D. I'm just astonished at how hard people will fight to avoid having to acknowledge any flaw of the system whatsoever.

>>54052729
>Or, are you hoping to try and claim the "When did you realize D&D was garbage?" are not made and bumped by these trolls?
... Are you actually retarded? /tg/ has been around since 2007 and has had at least one "When did you realize D&D was shit?" thread on it the entire time. Do you really expect me to believe that a secret cabal of anons is deliberately going out of their way to annoy people for playing what is an unassailably good game? The only reason that happened is that there is a large amount of anons who think D&D is shit, and that's as complicated as it needs to be. Fucking summerfag.

>>54056157

Neat. I'll look into that next time I find myself in the vicinity of potentially running 3.PF, thank you.

>>54052906
>trolls really only belong on boards like /b/ or /r9k/
Wew lad. Did you get good grades this year, underage?

OP kicked a hornet's nest. The trolls are going all out.

>>54056365
It was fine for a while nut now people are going overboard defending DnD

>>54056365

More likely people are just capitalising on the buttmad and shitposting for shits and giggles.

>>54056381
*but

>>54056381
>The rape was fine for a while but now she is defending herself

>>54056381
Not really. The Edition Wars were so much worse.

>>54056365
Anyone who uses the word "troll" in a serious discussion is a thin-skinned faggot

>>54052273
Forget it, Jake. It's summertime.

>>54056407
I don't hate DnD I just dislike it, specifically 5e, the problem is that people aren't calm enough to differentiate rational criticism of DnD and don't play DnD memes

Quit worrying about the bad threads, just bump the good threads. Let teens be teens.

>>54055320
I think it's horrorsystem-anon.

I think we have a new virt, but this one is on a pro-DnD crusade instead.

>>54054730

Spells eat up book space because they don't generalize. Each one is dramatically different, many of them introduce new rules that apply only to that spell, and they're not available to every character. You can easily burn through half a page describing a spell that's only available to max-level Wizards of one school that they probably won't even end up taking. Multiply that by a dozen-ish classes and dozens of various circles/domains/schools/bloodlines and you're going to take a huge space hit. All that specificity chews through page counts because each spell functions.

Meanwhile, the Combat chapter just applies to everyone, everywhere, all the time. A literal case of write once, run anywhere. Or in this case write once, run everywhere. It provides a framework where you can plug in the various factors and calculate the necessary roll for any combination of factors. And, by definition, being so universal it sees the most usage.

In short, good RPG books aren't written to be read cover to cover like a novel, they're written to be used. Chapter size is a poor metric for rating importance compared to actual usage.

>>54056600

Eh, I'm always against ascribing identity without good evidence. It's an attractive but intellectually dishonest cognitive shortcut to assume your opponents are a homogenous minority you can clearly identify and categorize, even though the nature of the site means that's basically never the case.

As nice as it would be to believe, it's more than possible that it's multiple idiots parroting the same dumb ideas for their own reasons.

>>54056633

But that still doesn't avoid the point that the system focuses heavily on spells, and reserves a lot of the cool, interesting stuff for spellcasters only.

The core combat system is boring, with the extra actions available worse than doing nothing unless you spec into them with feats. 3.PF only found the faintest hint of satisfying martial combat with the ToB/PoW content... Which a lot of people criticised for being too much like spells.

Plus, a system should dedicate wordcount to what it's actually going to use, what it cares about. If a system wastes half the book on something you'll only use 10% of the time, that's inefficient design that gives a false impression of what's important to the game.

In D&D, I honestly think it gives a very accurate impression of what matters- It's all about the spells.

>>54056652
Good point. The writing style is shockingly similar, even ignoring similar arguments, but it's the same mistake OP has been making.

Can't assume identity on 4chan.

>>54056718
I think you just want to be unsatisfied. You need more descriptions for spells because they are more apart from the world of the players.
Also, the boringness of combat is more about how encounters are designed, and how big are the stakes.
>inb4 invincible high-level PCs
thy don't exist, and a good plot puts the stakes anywhere else in case.

>>54056801

The boringness of combat comes down to the core combat system.

I have high standards for combat systems. I think a good core combat system should provide multiple interesting and useful options to every combatant, even before considering things like feats or class abilities.

The sad thing is that 3.PF was going for this but botched it. Bull rushes, sunders, disarms, trips, these are all good ideas that are sloppily executed with the system overly punishing doing anything that isn't just hitting the other guy, only making them worth it with a lot of investment, effectively forcing characters to become one trick ponies.

Contrast that to spellcasters, who get an increasingly broad and interesting array of options, completely unconstrained by the normal limitations of combat. It's just kinda sad.

>>54055658

It's hard to live up to hype. DW is a good game but it's very different than most TTRPGs, with its own strengths and weaknesses. People who cared more about bashing DnD and Pathfinder than fairly recommending DW kept pushing the narrative that it was "DnD done right" and would solve all D20-related problems.

When people actually tried it they found something that wasn't even vaguely DnD beyond setting. If you love the type of game that grows out of D. Vincent Baker's game engines, you loved it. If that type of gaming isn't for you, it wasn't for you. But it wasn't the coming savior the same way DCC wasn't, LotFP wasn't, Burning Wheel wasn't, and whatever the trolls co-opt next won't be.

The real shame is that this derails both the DnD discussions and the possibility for these games to start getting their own legitimate non-DnD discussions and developing their own communities on /tg/. They're all good games, they're all unique, they all appeal to certain players, but they can't be that if they're constantly getting reduced to the anti-DnD flavor of the month.

>>54056854
>>54055658

The infamous Dungeon World copypasta didn't help either, people started spamming it and a lot of people just got annoyed about it to the point they won't give the system the time of day.

>>54056846
No, the system punishes you if you try it against a superior opponent AND you are untrained.
You just have to re-read the rules.
Also, again, the encounter. Bullrush toward a cliff/spell or disarm an Holy symbol is always worthwhile.

>>54056854
It would be fun to see a system designed for dungeon crawling and OSR style game-play divorced from DnD sensibilities

>>54056923

The 3.5 version doesn't care. You always take a penalty, and you always take an AoO. either one would be crippling, together they make taking any combat action other than attacking a goddamn stupid move unless you follow a feat chain to make it not suck. And this is bad, boring design because it makes all those core combat actions useless and irrelevant the majority of the time, save for the one you sink lots of feats into so it's actually decent.

File: dancingvader.gif (838KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

838KB, 500x281px

>>54052273
We don't like D&D. When someone says they're having problems that inherent to D&D, we'll recommend they try something besides D&D.

We want the hobby to grow, but ideally we want D&D to have nothing to do with growth in the hobby.

I can't recall starting a thread to say "D&D sucks." I can't recall expending more effort than a post and a follow-up post on "D&D sucks."

I don't recommend you switch to any particular game/system.

I'm sorry your butthole is so blasted. Maybe you should try playing something that isn't D&D?

>>54056718

I think you're more interested in what's fun to read and imagine than what's fun to play. I think what you have trouble understanding that what you find fun (immersing yourself in pages upon pages of magic rules) may not be what other people find fun (pretending to be a viking or a knight.)

I also think that you have a real problem distinguishing from specific and important and wish it were true that you could determine it by word count but nothing could be further from truth: compare the laws on, say, murder to the laws on agricultural taxation. Simple isn't unimportant.

I think it adds up to you making a strange argument that because you're interested in how Wizards play DnD sucks for everyone, and that isn't very persuasive.

>>54056429
Why are you trolls still pretending no one can recognize trolls?

>>54057071

I am very confused what point you're trying to make or how it relates to my post. Could you provide some clarification?

>>54057071
Wizards, clerics, and druids are flat out superior to the other classes in 3.5, that and martial have limited options in and out of combat especially in 5E

>>54056925

Depends a lot on what you mean by OSR and DnD sensibilities, but have you tried Dungeon World? It really is a good game that is very un-DnD in design.

If you have and that didn't scratch the itch, maybe more specific as to why it didn't? There's a lot of really good game systems out there but its hard to recommend one because they all play very differently.

>>54056983
>we
You sure are projecting there.

>>54056979
You always select the worst edition for every specific criticism, don't you?
Also, you are just repeating memes. In 3.5 you cannot disarm a trained ogre if untrained AND he misses you AND he was able to carry out an AOO in the first place. Not everyone has Combat Reflexs.
Or the target is a wizard you have to disarm of his staff. So he will not hit, or the damage will not surpass your DR. Or you are using a weapon for a trip, so doesn't matter especially if it has reach or is bolas.

Unless you are demanding an untrained attacker is supposed to trip a trained AND superior AND not surprised one. In this case, I think you are the problm here.

>>54057166
I was talking about your mom and I.

She says hi.

>>54056983
you are cancer.

>>54057157
Never tried Dungeon World, but I've heard it is rules light which honestly imo isn't a good fit for the gameist style I am thinking of

>>54057166
>>54057216
(also that's not projecting. projecting is when you're mapping your own psychosis or social failings to someone else. What you were going for was probably more "speculating" or "guessing" or "inferring" or "presupposing" or OPEN A FUCKING THESAURUS)

>>54057148

3.5 is two whole rulesets ago. More options is not automatically better. Your argument is once again "I don't like it, so nobody should."

>>54057238
On the contrary. D&D is cancer. Think of me as the scalpel.

>>54057207

I'm looking at the 3.5 SRD right now and I'm very confused.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#disarm

>>54057271

>Your argument is once again "I don't like it, so nobody should."

Except this isn't something anyone has said?

Except D&D fanatics using it as a strawman to dismiss criticism, I suppose.

>>54057139

You are arguing the game is bad because you don't like how the rulebook is structured. That's a weak argument.

>>54057282
This is why you fail at the game. Or find the combat "boring".
You are just too stupid.
It turns out the combat pages are not too few, but too many, because you are unable to consider the implication of surprise, positioning, weapons used, and potential damage of the target.

>>54053157
>>54053682
Make that three.

>>54057299

...No? I'm arguing that how the rulebook is structured reveals that 3.PF's design priority lies firmly on magic, explaining why caster supremacy is such a big deal- It was baked into the system from the design stage.

>>54057271
It's fine if you like DnD but it's has flaws and it's important not to ignore them, also martials although more powerful in 5e are also more boring imo because of the limited skill system and general lack of options in combat

>>54057307

I'm not confused by the rules. I'm confused that your authoritative statement doesn't seem to reflect how the rules actually say things work.

>>54057216
>>54057256
You sound upset.

>>54057331
4E is cool though

There seems to be about 3-4 people on each side of this argument in this thread right now, make sure you don't attribute to one the argument of another

>>54057380

As someone who liked 4e, 4e still has flaws. Borked combat math that needs free feats and to ignore the earlier monster manuals, some straight up dud classes like Vampire, Assassin and everything Essentials, along with some classes with an unfortunate lack of support due to the game derailing into Essentials mid run.

It's a game I really enjoy and have a lot of time for, but given the context of the discussion it wouldn't seem fair to mention it without highlighting its weaknesses and the best ways to fix the more glaring ones.

>>54057336
Yes, you are stupid.
You assume that anyone that attempts a maneuver is not trained to carry out is automatically punished.
Bu if the target is too weak, or surprised (and has not Combat Reflexes), or you use the right implement the restrictions are avoided.
This makes all the discussion about "muh page counts" even more enjoyable. You are perhaps not a troll, but just a functionally illiterate individual.

>>54057408
I agree it's just that 4e doesn't have the problems that I personally find annoying in 3.5 and 5e

>>54057255

Ouch. Yeah, that's a problem. Most rules-heavy stuff needs a team if not outright corporate backing and that's going to leave a lot of room for DnD stuff to creep back in. Sorry :(

>>54052282
>Ignoring them doesn't work
Wrong.

>>54057421

Have you ever played 3.5?

Because all those maneuvers are, unless you spec into them, worse than useless.

They expend your action to give the enemy an attack against you. An attack that, if it hits, means your entire action fails. So you just expended your action to take damage. That alone makes them not worth using.

And then there's the fact that, given how monster stats work, they're often going to have higher bonuses than you on the actual roll. And even if they don't, the swingy nature of the d20 means success is far from reliable- Again, without that feat investment.

It means that the non-attack actions, by default, are a significant risk for a marginal benefit which is, the majority of the time, less useful than just hitting the enemy.

This is why it's a badly designed core combat system.

>>54056223
This. OP needs to lurk more and post less.

>>54057467
I mean 4e probably covers a lot of what I want but I've heard that the skill system was trimmed down, basically what I want is a gameist system with in depth combat and a focus on problem solving in a dungeon environment

File: dramatic_pug.gif (1016KB, 359x270px) Image search: [Google]

1016KB, 359x270px

>>54057476
>everyone only fights monsters meme
Oh god, not rules and systems that allow you to develop your character's combat techniques to the game you are playing! Not that! Anything but that! It's horrible, horrible I tell you, that you might have a s\playstyle or run games that favor specific techniques over others, and god forbid you have access to multiple ways of building character to tailor them to the games you run or play!

Fuck, how AWFUL!

Moron.

>>54057544
Combat isn't enjoyable if you don't have multiple viable options because it devolves into attack the target with the best damage to hp and ac ratio

>>54057543

Honestly, 4e covers this pretty well. You just need to make proper use of Rituals and out of combat utility powers.

Rituals kinda suck RAW, but this can be solved by giving out ritual components, a GP value of stuff that can only be used for casting rituals, as well as giving people an extra power slot for out of combat utilities, 1/tier works pretty well in my experience.

>>54057544

Except none of that isn't possible if you have a core combat system that makes those innate actions useful. Fuck, other systems have done it and made it work. It's just the idea that the default actions should have a purpose and actually be beneficial to choose before you're super invested in them. Being able to invest in making them better is cool. Having to invest to make them at all worthwhile isn't.

>>54057476
You are just bad at encounter design. Or you don't know your weapons and you want to use the wrong maneuver against the wrong target.
Or you are just repeating memes, is like reading Gitp, same obtusity.
>They expend your action to give the enemy an attack against you. An attack that, if it hits, means your entire action fails. So you just expended your action to take damage. That alone makes them not worth using.
I explained why you can pull it off even without th feat. You either are willingly ignorand or plain stupid. READ THE FUCKING RULES. ALL OF THEM.

>>54057659

Your explanation is stupid half measures and apologism for a shittily designed system. You shouldn't have to jump through hoops to make core combat functions actively disadvantageous to use.

>>54057594
>>54057654
>watch us miss the point entirely

>>54057625
Maybe in the future we will see a 4e retro-clone considering that wizards has dropped 4e design ideas? I think magi-monsters borrowed a lot from 4e

>>54057717

I'm working on one with some friends at the moment. We'll see how it goes, we're trying to build on its strengths, remove the weaknesses while keeping it similar enough to have strong demographic appeal. No idea if we'll succeed, but it's worth a try.

>>54057703
If in a given campaign only a handful of your options in combat are viable you encounter the same problems as if you din't have that many options in the first place

>>54052623
>There are reasons not to play DnD.
There's no reason to have a near-identical thread about it three or more times per day, or to go out of your way to establish conversations about it as a confrontation that's explicitly discarding any notion of it being consructive.
It's not like this is a novel idea--intentional shitposting and flamebait both violate the sitewide rules for a reason.

>>54057683
No. Use surprise and right weapons against the right targets is not apologism.
If everything was easy against any target, there would not be difference in strategies in combat, ad the players would not be forced to use different solutions to overcome different enemies.
See above, dead/wild magic and the like for spells. Same thing.
BTW, so much for the "boring combat". You know nothing about it.
You just want to be mad at the system because (you). You keep repeating is bad, I show you that you are just repeating memes.
Reread the rules if you are smart enough, thing I doubt.

>>54057734
Best of luck, maybe post about it some time if it goes well?

>>54057807
I'm more familiar with 5e than 3.pf, but if it's in anyway similar I can imagine the combat is lackluster, compare to for example combat in runequest

>>54057809

That's the plan. We're aiming to complete the Heroic tier options for a single feature of the core four classes, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue and Fighter, before we start showing it off and getting some testing data. We figure having a fully playable snapshot should give a good example of our goals with the system, letting people properly assess it and give us really useful feedback for tweaking it and making more content.

>>54055848
>Tiers and e6 aren't easy
>Half a page of rules more respectively isn't easy
top kek m8, are you that '50 words a minute' anon from the OotS threads?

>>54057807

Surprise, which isn't reliable, and the right weapons, which restricts character options.

Sure sounds like a shitty, restrictive combat system that denies player choice to me anon.

>>54057919

Reading the whole post might help you not look like an idiot. Context is important.

>>54057855
Also going through the pathfinder srd combat maneuvers unless you have a feat provoke an attack of opportunity that if it hits reduces your chance to succeed with the maneuver by the damage which seems to me like it would make them nonviable

File: 1474148817551.png (615KB, 750x900px) Image search: [Google]

615KB, 750x900px

>>54052273
10/10 troll post. Manages to engage the general population, engage the trolls and sound innocent enough to pass as not summer posting

Would read again

>>54056477
Except 'rational criticism' is literally pointless as nobody forces you to play and nobody buys RPG books anyway (unlike vidya for example) because it's all on MEGA. If you really feel the need to throw shit at a system on /tg/, the burden of proof that you're not a troll is on you.
You retards are literally on the tier of someone telling people not to read free webcomics.

>>54056983
>Maybe you should try playing something that isn't D&D?
What do you recommend?

>>54057934
>You can carry one weapon, ever
Is not only that. The nature of the opponent. the environment and concealment, the use of alchemical objects like the smokesticks.
You are just not good enough.
Also, you assume that a specific strategy should be always viable, and this is plain wrong.
Do something else.

>>54058014

It's important that consumers are able to criticise products. It's how flaws are discovered, made known and perhaps fixed, and it's also important to hold people to task if they create subpar products, and to make it known that the consumer base expects better in future.

>>54058022

Nope. I'm assuming that the core combat options given to each character by default should be useful and worthwhile alternatives to just attacking. Because that makes a combat system interesting and allows for real choice.

As opposed to your backwards attempts to justify bad design by claiming it's intentional complexity, which is fucking laughable and still doesn't provide anything in the way of real choice in the core combat system.

>>54058017
Runequest

>>54058014
It has a place if you're interested in TTRPG systems and what makes them tick, I am not shitting on people for liking DnD, just talking about what it does well and poorly

>>54057943
Again
>half a page of rules
Nigga, that is not a lot of work for any GM, fuck off.

>>54052310
That's a funny looking toad

>>54058040
>products
They're on MEGA you retard. If you want to level effective criticism get your ass to boardgamegeeks or gitp or the wotc forum or whatever.

>>54058103
Except they aren't because modern /tg/ has no fucking clue how mechanics work anymore.

>>54058040
All true things.

But that's not what you do. Yyou mid\sinform, lie, make up hit, and don't bother to actuaally know what you're talkign about, so you're really just trying to tear down a specific game you don't like when there are many other games far worse than D&D out there that you could focus actual deserved criticism on.

You just don't have any vested interest because they're not games you hate.

>>54058111

So you didn't actually read it or think about the context. No real hope for you.

>>54058163

Man, you're really good at telling me what I think. It's an amazing way of arguing, asserting a strawman on your opponents and then refusing to accept it if they say otherwise. Congrats on completely killing the possibility of constructive conversation.

>>54058060
You are just ignoring the options I put in front of you.
The options are worthwhile, good with the feat, you can attempt them without if the target does not outclass you. That's math.
Yours is bullshit.

>>54058163
There's 59 posters in this thread you shouldn't attribute everything said against DnD to him

>>54052273
I'm not sure this is a real problem.

>>54058164
I understand your context alright. I just don't care about your apparent learning disability if you honestly think understanding and implementing E6 or the tier list takes longer than the literal 5 minutes it takes you to read them.

>>54058209

But here's why that's bullshit-

All of those options could still be useful and valuable in a combat system which made those core combat options actually useful. You could still get advantages through items or strategy and how you approach the encounter. But the core combat system would be better and more usable.

Making core combat actions not suck loses nothing, and adds plenty. You're just mindlessly defending it because you can't bear to accept it's flawed.

>>54058241

You really are amazing. You fixate on a few words while completely ignoring context or what else is said, and continue to act as if you're the voice of authority in regards to it. It's a fascinating sort of condescending arrogance.

>>54058207
Well, considering you are telling everyone they think when they point out the flaws in your arguments and you say "nope that's not how it works" even when the rules systems prove you wrong...it seemed pretty fair.

>>54058272

...What?

>>54058218
I'm not, I'm attacking his position specifically, given that his response to a previous response was to literally strawman and take things entirely out of context instead of refutation.

>>54058209
I could math it out but I'm pretty sure that the chance of a combat maneuver succeeding without a feat is to low to be worth it

>>54058248
loses realism. Not everyone is a master of unarmed disarming right out the cradle and making it so that they are turns your world into Naruto. Mechanics inform flavor.

>>54058267
there literally exists no context where your statement would not be retarded and wrong. go and hang yourself you fucking mongoloid.

>>54058248
The core actions, if untrained, do NOT suck. You assume they suck because you suck at the game.
The actions untrained are RISKY (assuming a worthy opponent), this is why you have to find workarounds, and those can make the action interesting. They are not the only thing, but are a component.
You start from a lolwrong assumption and build a whole castle of bullshit from there.

>>54058316

>realism
>D&D

lol

>>54058319

So, basically, you've never actually played a martial in D&D. Got it.

It's the only explanation for you being so ridiculously confident in being factually, mathematically wrong.

>>54058319
It's pointless mate. These are people who don't even read the fucking rules and think every encounter is against CR+x enemies where a -4 would make the attempt not viable.

>>54058339
>realism is binary
lol

>>54058364
>a -4 would make the attempt not viable
Not just that, but even if it were viable, it's almost certain to be far less effective than just hitting the fucking thing for damage.

>>54058364
>>54058408

And that's ignoring that they provoke AoO's.

>>54058349
I played for years and DMed for more.
I am not at fault for the problems of your group.
I also doubt you played, because your knowledge of 3.X combat is sketchy at best. If you played, I assume you went buttmad because your 1st level fighter was not going full naruto at the first adventure, and then started to read shitty forums.

>>54058364
>It's pointless mate. These are people who don't even read the fucking rules and think every encounter is against CR+x enemies where a -4 would make the attempt not viable.
I do wonder if these people play in the first place.

>>54058448
>I do wonder if these people play in the first place.
yeah, DW, and thy're salty that they're the only ones that do so.

>>54058408
>>54058420
>I haven't read the rules on encounter design: the post
>I haven't read the rules on encounter design: the post 2: Return to fag island

>>54058408
>Not just that, but even if it were viable, it's almost certain to be far less effective than just hitting the fucking thing for damage.
So the aim is always to dal damage, and the environment (traps, lava, portals) does not count.. ok. I see which kind of games you play, I understand the "boring combat" now.

>>54058420
>And that's ignoring that they provoke AoO's.
le AOO boogyman. I explaind above that in base of the system and maneuvering, you could not receive the AOO in the first place, or this could not hit (low skill, concealment, laundry list of things) or do not deal enough damage to be worthy.

Also:
>MUH -4
In PF any bonus to hit adds to the CMB you fucking crybabies.

>>54058488
>>54058513
Well, at least we discovered the mystery behind the DnD sucks threads.
Is just 1-2 posters being unbelievably buttmad at the fact that they suck so much at this game.

>>54058448
>>54058488
>>54058513
>>54058557

Do me a favour and do some googling on D&D optimisation and combat manoeuvres. I'll wait.

>>54058585
Do me a favor and read the core rules.

>>54058585
You switch to googling because is all you did.
You never played on day of your life.
What happened, anon, you are so repellent that even the nerd losers playing D&D kicked you out, or are too afraid to invite you?

All the googling will find optimize builds vs single high (relatively) CR threats. You utter retard.
You just theorycraft with no experience of a real game.

>>54058585
Then you promise to not open a 4th "why DnD sucks" thread?
Because is not even funny or irritating at this point, is just pathetic.

>>54058692

Why would I bother with that shit? Mostly I just try to post real criticism, although right now I'm being highly amused at just how awful at D&D people can be while claiming to be experts.

Since people are arguing about combat maneuvers without knowing what they're talking about I felt I should calculate how viable they are. All math was done assuming path finder. There are 6 combat maneuvers in Pathfinder, bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder, and trip. whether or not a combat maneuver succeeds is determined by a roll with the combat maneuver bonus, which is Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier, against the targets combat maneuver defense which is 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier + miscellaneous modifiers. a character attempting a combat maneuver without a feat provokes an attack of opportunity which if it hits gives you a penalty to your combat maneuver equal to the damage. More in next post

>>54058727
>Mostly I just try to post real criticism

>google some shit, I don't know
>yeah, that stuff is broken if you ignore the encounter rules
>yeah that stuff should be different that was done delibaretely as a design decision just because it impedes my power fantasy

fuck off

>>54058727
> I just try to post real criticism
This is amusing self-deception, at best.
You are just posting better quality memes.
There is nothing constructive in this thread, just repeating the same shit over and over, and ignoring other people.

>>54058779

Eh, at the moment it's funnier to stick around and see what kind of words you put in my mouth to justify your bizarre views.

>>54058788

That is the kind of thing the D&D is perfect circlejerk tends to produce, yeah.

>>54058735
> What are reposition, drag, dirty trick and steal

>>54058794
3/10

>>54058804
2/10

cmon mate you can do better. Try something with monks, that usually works.

>>54058817
I forgot to add the advanced players guide

>>54058735
To calculate the value of a combat maneuver you take the chance of it succeeding and then multiply by the damage caused by the maneuver or if the maneuver disarmed or caused a condition instead you multiply the chance of the maneuver succeeding by the increase in damage caused by the condition or by the damage prevent by the condition or disarm. if the value of the damage caused by the combat maneuver is less than the damage on hit of the characters attack multiplied by the chance to hit or if the damage prevented by the combat maneuver is less than that which would have been prevented by killing the target faster the combat maneuver would be a worse choice than an attack, which generally means that combat maneuver aren't worth attempting without a feat or very specific situations

>>54058992
No. This is not a tabletop, is an RPG and you could not always want to kill the opponent.
Also, a disarm or sunder on a component pouch or holy symbol could be worthy 200 damage and 300 HP healed.

>>54059030
*tabletop wargame

>>54059030

Reducing the opponent to 0HP is still the default win condition. Whether it's lethal or not is up to player choice, but you can't ignore game mechanics just because you find their existence inconvenient.

If you're in a combat, you're trying to reduce the opponent to 0HP. The ways you might do so differ, and save or dies/save or sucks offer alternatives, but the default victory condition remains the same.

>>54059030
against a casters it's generally easier to just kill them than disarm them, combat maneuvers without feats are a bad choice mechanically

>>54059087
>>54059100
No. You could want them alive, or just aware that you have not bad intentions. You disarm and talk as a free action.
Or you know you cannot 1 shot them, so you move, strike, and avoid a number of spells the symbol/pouch could have been used as focus for.
You could want the item carried and if you will not take it now, it will be used and wasted.
And so on. Nice wargame you play, buddies.

>>54059149
nonlethal damage is an option and is generally a better option then disarming, also maneuvers don't make combat better if they aren't useful

>>54059220
There is a lot of stuff immune to nonlethal.
But that's fine, keep finding new solutions to this "boring" combat.

>>54059292
How many creatures are immune to non-lethal that you wouldn't want to kill, on top of that death doesn't occur until you reach negative hit points equal to or greater than your constitution,

>>54059350
You could easily drop your target and then stabilize them

>>54059350
>>54059361
Are you guys able to determine whether you can crit or not? What if you go overboard?
And what if the cleric is pissed you stabbed him "nonlethally" and will refuse to collaborate?
Are you guys ever trying?

>>54059415

Well, we're discussing core system function in the vast majority of circumstances, rather than a small number of edge cases where the manoeuvres you so adore wouldn't even be particularly helpful anyway.

>>54059415
Any weapon can use non lethal damage albeit at a penalty, also even if non-lethal damage crits it doesn't kill

>>54059443
You decided this "vast majority of circumstances" in an arbitrary manner.
Is the sam shit over and over. Magic always works that way, encounters are in the same kind of rooms, aims are always drop the enemy to 0 HP, encounters feature 1 high CR creature. And so on.

>>54059461
Of course the cleric NPC will conveniently metagame, I suppose.

>>54059483

Yeah. Simple, basic system assumptions that deal with the most common situations and assess them rationally, because it provides a solid baseline.

Always assuming edge cases and the weird scenarios that come up is an utterly retarded way to assess a system. For every scenario you can come up with where combat manoeuvres are great and magic sucks, someone else can come up with an opposite. Scrabbling for scenarios doesn't help anyone learn anything, which is why those default setups and basic scenarios are the necessary basic unit of analysis.

>>54059506

>Argument from popularity
>Statistics from a virtual tabletop, which most systems don't need

>>54052282
>Cue damage control from these trolls.

Holy fucking understatement, OP.

>>54059500
It would be clear in universe that you're trying to subdue him non-lethally

>>54059510
The fact that you consider different ways to deal with the enemy, or an enemy with immunity to nonlethal "edge scenarios" says more you than any of your shitposts.

>>54053566
>There really fucking aren't. If there were, there would be a common consensus.
Fuck you, yes there are. But every time people suggest those fixes, you faggots come out of the woodworkers saying "Homebrew doesn't count the system is still shit!"

>>54059695

They're either not quick, not easy or not good.

>>54059859
For average or higher intelligence people they are.
Sometimes is just "which editions is bst for X?" And play it.
But I guess being butthurt gets you off better.

>>54059905

Except the original point was an outcry against 'use a different system' responses

>>54059922
Nice moving the goalpost.

>>54059942

...What movement? That was the original point that literally started the entire argument. It's not my problem if you're incapable of scrolling up.

>>54059964
No, you answered to the post about the "REEE NO HOMEBREW".

>>54059996

And you answered to the post linked to the original reply chain going way back to that initial point.

>>54059905
You're talking to the most autistic troll on /tg/.

Just a fair warning before you waste any time trying to actually get through to him.
Don't worry. We all recognize him for what he is, so you don't have to waste words pointing out how stupid he is.

>>54059599
For disarm to be useful you have to be facing an opponent you don't want to kill, who can't be reasoned with and therefore must be subdued in combat, is not a threat without a weapon, is immune to non-lethal damage, would surrender if disarmed, and is frail enough that using lethal damage to reduce him to below zero hit points carries the risk of killing him, it's way too niche to be useful

>>54060063

And here's OP's message enacted perfectly.

Don't like what someone says? they continue to disagree with you after you tell them to stop! Call them a troll. Heck, if they're actually making arguments and citing points you can't counter, throw in 'autistic' on top of that and act like you're too good to deal with them. It's the perfect solution to maintain your point of view without ever having to defend or critically consider it.

>>54060112
Load of crap, as always.
>who can't be reasoned with
at the moment
>is not a threat without a weapon,
after talking about pouches and symbols for spells I read this. I don't even
>is immune to non-lethal damage,
is a possibility. or is just not one-shottable in that position and moment of the combat
>would surrender if disarmed,
see above. Could be this, or is just made less lethal, or you just want what is carrying.
>and is frail enough that using lethal damage to reduce him to below zero hit points carries the risk of killing him,
not AND, is OR.
You guys are just finishing the options, aren't you? Now is just "no you" like this utter retard >>54060010
Or just building disingenuous posts like this putting together a distorted version of previous posts.
Mediocre.

>>54060121
>someone called me out!
>better act like an autistic troll!
>that'll work as damage control

God forbid you ever had to see yourself as everyone else sees you, you pathetic troll.

>>54060215

Thankfully I'm not the one labouring under delusions.